How exactly does it happen to be Intel's fault that during the entire, multi-year run of the 130nm and 90nm 'rule' of AMD's superior-performing Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2s, that AMD was 100% supply-constrained? AMD sold every single CPU they were able to make, and at a very nice price, I might add. As a matter of fact, they did so up until the day that the Intel Conroe uArch launched.
How exactly does it happen to be Intel's fault that during the entire, multi-year run of the 130nm and 90nm 'rule' of AMD's superior-performing Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2s, that AMD was 100% supply-constrained? AMD sold every single CPU they were able to make, and at a very nice price, I might add. As a matter of fact, they did so up until the day that the Intel Conroe uArch launched.
How exactly does it happen to be Intel's fault that during the entire, multi-year run of the 130nm and 90nm 'rule' of AMD's superior-performing Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2s, that AMD was 100% supply-constrained?
When did Zen server tapeout likely happen, based on seeing forum members which already have ES in their hands?
When did Zen server tapeout likely happen, based on seeing forum members which already have ES in their hands?
Shintai, I think you should read it properly, not based on your own expectations .
Nope. Again, you based your post on what you thought are my expectations . Try again .
A mobilization charge (early money from a big recurring order) gives you the money do deal with supply chain issues.
Do you think intel really needed $64bil worth of felonies to take down a company like amd?
Edit: At first I agreed with you.
Actually, Intel didnt need anything. AMD shot itself in the foot with Bulldozer and the huge over-payment for ATI, and still hasnt recovered. But somehow, I suppose you will blame Intel for that too.
And please be a bit more specific about those "felonies". At least in the US settlement, not saying intel did nothing wrong, but a settlement is certainly different from a "felony".
Yep, Zen looks to be very solid in the IPC department. AMD still needs to get to some mid to high 3Ghz range since intel's lineup is there already. I hope they don't jack up the price on 8C/16T parts (a la 5690X).I saw that post on S|A, very interesting.
I hope they don't jack up the price on 8C/16T parts (a la 5690X).
If the SA post is right, then it seems AMD already lost the performance/watt game.
Arh sorry. Zen is king and AMD will get 99% server share. 50$ stocks and billion $ profit every quarter!
Better? Did it align with your expectations?
It was also Intels fault that AMD delayed 65nm, new uarch and was sure that Intel would never catch up while they was busy making PR slides like this
Did I mention Core 2 was simply overclocked Opterons?
If ZEN is only 95W TDP, they are not targeting the Intel HEDT market that is only a small niche (less that 1% of Intels sales) but the mainstream to high-end socket 1150.
That means a lot cheaper than Core i7 5690X.
The relative power consumption is roughly the same as on Intel 14nm parts with similar configuration, but the clocks are quite low :/
I hope they don't jack up the price on 8C/16T parts (a la 5690X).
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257682&postcount=2112
So unless they somehow beat Intel in IPC, the performance/watt train is departed.
Or its an Engineering sample, you know the ones for testing and validation of platforms. Would you bin Engineering sample's you send out? Im guessing not you just run them at a high voltage to get maximum number of full dies and start sharing them.
So im sure you have comparable ~A0 engineering sample data from other CPU's when you made your analysis....... care to share
i never said higher then specification. I said you wouldn't bin them and set a high voltage, that will throw any perf/watt comparison right out the window.
Do you have any evidence that this ever happened? I have provided you with a A0 Broadwell-EP example. Your move.
You provided a core that has been in what 4 SOC's on the same process before Broadwell EP and then compare it to the first A0 for a completely new Core, on a new for AMD process, your comparison is not even remotely comparable.
here is zambizi
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aS-QScAfdR4/maxresdefault.jpg
stock was normally around 1.375
Actually, Intel didnt need anything. AMD shot itself in the foot with Bulldozer and the huge over-payment for ATI, and still hasnt recovered. But somehow, I suppose you will blame Intel for that too.
And please be a bit more specific about those "felonies". At least in the US settlement, not saying intel did nothing wrong, but a settlement is certainly different from a "felony".